tv U.S. House Meets for Legislative Business CSPAN May 19, 2017 8:59am-10:01am EDT
it would be to more conservative islamic values. in britain, they launched their campaign ahead of the june 8 election. the prime minister announcing her party's manifesto. you can listen to what she had to say, as well as the labor party leader, jeremy corbyn, earlier this week launched his campaign. you can find their speeches on her website, www.c-span.org. the house about to gaveling for their morning session. they are starting early. normally 10:00. they will be getting underway any minute at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. our gavel coverage on c-span. our several committee hearings this weekend. you can find a programming on www.c-span.org. we will bring you live to the house floor for our coverage on
c-span. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer wilbe offered by our chaplain, fher nroy. chaplain croy: l us pray. loving andracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another ay. bless theembersf e people'souse ding ese desive ds. may the remain genuine enogh to preserve their integrity.
good enoh to keetheir faith, always regaing public fice as a sacd tst. give th t wisdom and courage to fail not ei fellowitizens nor you. ess as well all ose wh serve t men and women in he armed forces and at tnd of this ek tseen and wom of the blue li who protects dailynur homes, wns, ancities. may all that is done be for your greater honor andlorry. amen. the speak: thehair ha examinedhe jrnal of the lastay's proedings and announces to the house s pproval thereo pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal st arove for what rpose does the ntleman from texas eks reconition? >> mr. speaker, purant to clause 1 of rule 1, demand a voten the speak's appva the journal. spoig the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the spear's proval of theournal. so manys e in favor say aye e opposed, no. the ayes havet.
the journt stands approd. mr. culberson: freakpreek. the speaker o tee: frot geneman from texas sk recognion mr. culberson: i object to e vote on the ounds that a qurum is n present and make a point of order a quom is not present. the speaker pursuant to clau 8 of re 20, further proedin o this question are postpod. 9 pledge of allegiance wille led by the gentlem from arkans, mr. womack. mr. womack: all rise,lea. i plgellegiance to the flag of the united states of america and tohe republic for whh tands, one nation der god, indivisie, wh liberty and justice for all. the saker: thchair will tertain up toive ruest for one-min speecheon each side of the aisle. r what purpose does the ntlanrom arkans seek recognitn? mr. womack: i se unims cosent to addresshe house foe minute. the speerwithout objectn the gentleman isecognized. mr. wack: mr. speaker, rise tod in recognitionf drg and vetans treatment courts in amica. no one disputes the issues of rampant drug abuse and use in
our nati anti-trendous hardship it's placing on families, on businesses, and our criminal justice system. i met a young n from arkaas who epitomizes why wne these prrams. he was facing0 years in prisonecause after 1year addiction to opioid prescption drugs th spileraled out of control while experimentg in ollege. toda he's the father of three autifulhildren, ownsis own he, and giffling back his community. all becse drug courtn arkansas savedim this mths national d courmont dru cots help one of our nation most successful strategior intermention. i supportdrug courts and veterans treatment cots. m counting on my colleags o enre they a properly suppted and funde th retrn on iestment i incal cue clabble.
i yield back the balance of m i. without objecon. >>r. speaker, i rise today to introducehe direct connect to successct. in my district and across the statef florida hureds of thousandsf strivitudents artn community coeges and automatilly get admitted into ou four-year universities if they gradua with a minimum of 2.0. a four-year degree opens up even more opportunitiesor ese studes, many of whom come from undersved an rural areas. this has been a natnly reognized pgram that is only available in few states. but by expandihis imple provroam nationwide, wel extend the opportunity to continueigher educationo
millions mor hardworking, eserving students. we can all aee that government has a role to play ineducing barers to success and this guanteeadmission is a low-cost,ighly efficient way to remove this biarrier. i ask you d otrs to join me in support of direct connect to success act to eate more tupets to pursuant the american dream forll stunt and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the geneman fromexas seek recnition? mr. cull rbern: natiol police week ian -- mr. culbso national police week is anpportunity for all americans to eress our deep appreciatiofor our officers andirst resnderfor their selfless svice. i nt take a moment to honor those who have lost th livesn the lif t in harris county, texas, we recognize and remember th lives of chief clit greenwood
and dety goforth who work tiressly to keep housn safe. both tse men serveheir communitieand famili honorably and so graful for their sacrifice. as chairman of the commerce justice, sence, appropriations subcommittee it is and will continue to one of my top prioties to ensure a our law enrcement ffics have the resources theyeedo protect our mmunities and themselves we musalways honor, ott those wh protect us. i express a deephas to the people of txas and america to ur uniformed officers for thir dedcateseice to our aon. >> m. eaker, i rise and praise a good honor our men and women in uniform. for 18 years bud simmons has osted a true hero appreciation day at his pier 31 marina and
restaurant where he treats military families to a delicious meal, boat rides on the lake, numerous prizes, and a day together as a family. away from the stresses of military life. if you ask bud m he does it he'll tell you freedom not free and he wants to honor our heroes pledging their lives to protect ours. he remembers how many troops returning from vietnam were never thanked for their sacrifices and doesn't want that mistake repeated. this year's event on saturday, june 10, is the last time that bud will host this event. i want to thank bud for his efforts to honor those who serve. he has made a difference in countless lives of service men, women, and their families and we're all grateful for his example, his leadership, and his patriotism. god bless you, bud. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? -- michigan, excuse me.
without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to thank michigan's police officers for their selfless service and to honor the fallen. isaiah 6:8 since whom shall i send? and who will go for us? i said here i am, send me. every time our law enforcement officers put on their uniform, they are saying, send me. in cities and small towns all over the united states, law enforcement officers act as our protectors, defenders, and ambassadors of peace. they hold that thin blue line between thriving healthy communities and chaos. mr. bergman: during the past few months, i have had the pleasure of getting to know office terse serving the -- officers serving the travers city communities in specific and across the first district. i can say without pause that
michiganders are in capable and caring hands. we owe a debt of gratitude -- a debt of cooperation, and a debt of consistent support to our law enforcement officers. god rest the souls of the fallen. keep their friends, families, and fellow officers in your hearts and prayers. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 324, i call up h.r. 1039, and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 66, h.r. 1039, a bill to amend section 3606 of title 18 united states code to grant probation officers authority to arrest hostile third parties who obstruct or impede a probation officer in the
performance of official duties. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 324, the bill is read. after one hour of debate on the bill it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in house report number 115-127, if offered, by the member designated in the report which shall be considered as read. shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the prone opponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to demand for vision division of the question. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1039. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting the amendment to h.r. 1039 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8, rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: before i address the bill under consideration today, i'd like to take a few minutes to honor a very special member of my st. barack govensoler who lost his courageous battle with cancer this past weekend. he was a valued member of the judiciary committee team and worked on a variety of issues including digital privacy and intellectual property. his vast knowledge and grasp of the issues impacting the technology community was a tremendous asset to the community. most recently his work included the development of the committee's innovation and competitiveness agenda and his steadfast work and tenacious attitude were not only essential in making this initiative a success, but were also a testament to his character. in fact, while he was undergoing intensive cancer treatments, he was actively working and sending follow-up emails from his hospital bed. and just days before he passed away, he met with f.c.c.
commissioner to discuss a number of judiciary committee priorities. for barack, nothing could prevent him from an opportunity to discuss andance the policies he was so passionate about. barack was a true technology policy enthusiast. prior to joining the staff of the judiciary committee, he served as a legislative advisor for congressman randy forbes. while working for congressman forbes, he handled the diverse range of issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the judiciary committee but was always evident that technology policy was his first love. he co-founded the congressional tech staff association and served as an executive officer responsible for the professional development program. prior to his career on capitol hill, he worked at tech america and comp tia focusing on international trade policy. he has many friends here in the halls of congress on both sides
of the aisle. i know all of you join me in extending our deepest sympathies to his mother, and his sister. his girlfriend, and all of his loved ones. barack will be deeply missed. mr. speaker, now i rise in strong support of h.r. 1039, the probation officer protection act of 2017 and urge my colleagues to do the same. i want to thank the primary author of the bill, the gentleman from washington, congressman reichert, for his leadership on this and many other law enforcement issues. under current law, a federal probation officer may arrest a probationer or an offender on supervised release if the officer has probable cause to believe that the offender has violated a condition of his or her probation or release. the officer may make the arrest with or without a warrant. unfortunately, current law does not grant probation officers
arrest authority in situations where a third party attempts to physically obstruct an officer or inflict physical harm on the officer. . despite the fact that interfering with a probation officer in the performance of his or her official duties is in itself a crime, federal probation officers lack the authority to correct or restrain a physically interfering third party. in fact, a probation officer's only course of action is to retreat from the situation. this not only exposes these officers to a heightened risk of harm as they are not permitted to subdue the assailant, it also allows the probationer to conceal evidence he has violated terms of his probation or supervised release or any other criminal activity. h.r. 1039 is a reasonable and responsible remedy to this very real problem. this bill, which has the support of the judicial conference of the united states and the federal law enforcement
officers association, will protect probation officers and enhance their ability to do their job by giving them authority to arrest a third party who forcibly interferes with an officer's performance of his or her official duties. this bill would not give probation officers general arrest authority. rather, as noted, it grants them the very limited authority to arrest the third party who is interfering with the duties of the officer, which is already a federal crime. . i ask that my colleagues support this measure so they have the necessary authorities to undertake their duties safely and effectively. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i unanimous consent to speak for such time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: first of all, the chairman and to the
republican team, let me offer on behalf of the democrats and mr. conyers our deepest sympathy for the loss of barack and to also acknowledge how important our staff is and how important we are as a family on the judiciary committee. staff, republican and democratic staff members, working together around legislation that makes a difference in the lives of americans. to hear the dedication of barack only warms our heart to recognize that we still live in the greatest country in the world because we have young people willing to serve and sacrifice on behalf of their nation. so i offer my deepest sympathy to you and to his family as well. i rise to discuss the underlying bill and that is h.r. 1039, and, again, as we finish police work, let me say to all those in law enforcement, including our federal law enforcement, local,
county and state, a very large thank you for the work that you have done. in my work as a former judge in the city of houston, i've seen their work up close and personal and as well i have had the opportunity on a number of cases where i've asked and interacted with them as they have proceeded their investigation to find the culprit, the perpetrator and to make the community safe. federal probation officers perform a critical service in interacting with and managing their supervisees. they have a central role in seeking to achieve the important goals of supervision, which includes rehabilitating the defendant, safeguarding society from further criminal conduct by the defendant and protecting the rights of victims. although probation officers do ve the ability to arrest a soupvisee under certain things,
they need to work in a constructive manner to maximize the chances of adherence to the conditions of supervision. we certainly do not want probation officers to be threatened or assaulted while performing their duties, nor do we want anyone to obstruct the performance of those duties. in many instances, those probation officers can be assisted by backup officers or other federal officers in the line of their duty. that is why caulk enacted section 111 of -- congress enacted section 111 of the united states code which prohibits such behavior. charges brought when appropriate but also the probation officer can seek assistance. in fact, probation officers have long relied on law enforcement officers to provide support during searches and i believe that is still the best course. section 111, however, presents serious issues about the vagueness of some of its terms that define violations such as
interferes or opposes. may i remind my colleagues that we have a first amendment, we have the right of freedom of speech and freedom of access, freedom of movement. this shows my concerns about probation officers to arrest individuals who they are not supervising for violation of this section. we're told by proponents of this bill that they plan to use lesser include authority instead of bringing them in for charges after an arrest. at a time when we need to do more, to de-escalate circumstances involving confrontations between law. and citizens, i'm concerned that establishing this authority will only lead to more confrontation. in concluding, as i indicated, the bill would authorize federal probation officers to arrest without a warrant an individual other than its upervisee if they believe they did something. i believe there are conflicts
here. i ask my colleagues to oppose the legislation. i reserve the balance of my time serve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from virginia. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from washington state, mr. reichert, the chief sponsor of the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. reichert: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. speaker. today i'm here to talk about a bill that should be a fully bipartisan bill supported by all members of this body. it gives our probation officers the tools they need to defend themselves but also at the same time protect the people who are on probation, that the probation officers are trying to help and protect and keep on track and get them back on a path toward productive citizenship in this country. and sometimes they're impeded
from doing their job, not just verbally. i was a cop for 33 years. i was verbally abused thousands of times. i lost track. those bounce off the badge, and that's what probation officers do. verbal abuse is verbal abuse and you deal with it and you handle it and you go about your day. but when somebody puts their hands on you or they spit on you that's physical, that's assault. and probation officers should be able to protect themselves and take actions in those instances when they're assaulted. you don't need an arrest warrant. you dode need a search warrant to arrest someone who has just assaulted an officer. this is common sense. so to say you need a search warrant or arrest warrant to arrest someone who's assaulted you is the wrong way to look at
this law. the person who's being supervised, lives in a residence and the probation officer has the authority to go to that residence and has the authority, by the way, mr. speaker, to walk into that residence, they have the authority to force them their way into that residence if it's known to be owned by the person who's on probation. and if they're obstructed in doing that, it's a violation of the law and then furthermore, if they're assaulted, it's another violation. but in the past what's happened is that the probation officer has had to step away, walk away and say, oh, well, the guy spit me in the face, punched me, obstructed me, i guess i'll go back on the car and get on the radio and 30 minutes from now when police officers can finally show up because we're short-handed across this nation as far as police officers go, i mean, we have hundreds and hundreds of vacant -- thousands of vacancies across this nation
in every police department, every sheriff's office so we are going to step away, we're going to call for backup and wait for half an hour and see what happens. i think it not only puts the probation officer at risk but it also puts the person who's on probation at risk. what's happening in that house that that person doesn't want us to come in and see? i worked with, as you might guess, probation officers from local level, federal level, all across the spectrum. they are well trained. they have an academy they go through. they raise their right hand and swear to uphold the constitution, all the laws of this country. they are trained then every year. they have minimal amount of training, 40 hours, that's the minimum. they have additional training on top of that on specific issues on how to handle situations where it escalates to, you know, a physical event. they know how to de-escalate verbal events.
these are professional people who are doing a job that, you know, a lot of people don't want. and already states across this country have recognized that their state probation officers need this sort of authority. in some states, for example, they've given them full police authority, full police authority. in this case, it's very, very limited. it's limited to the obstruction. it's limited to the physical obstruction of the probation officer doing their job that we have asked them to do on behalf of all of us in this country. the least we can do, as we wrap up police memorial week, is to say, we support -- mr. speaker, there are members in this body who have found a way, decided that there is a way i can vote no on this. instead of standing up saying, there are members here that have had police officers added
to the memorial way this past week and some cases five people from one state and those members have decided to find a way to not support law enforcement and they're going to vote no. we can yack all we want about supporting cops, but if we don't show up for this vote, it's all talk. when i was a cop, you had to walk the talk, and today, members of this body, if you support law enforcement, you better walk the talk. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman and indicate that there is no doubt we want our officers to be safe. i do want to bring to the attention of my colleagues that we don't want probation officers to be threatened or assaulted while performing their work or their duties, nor do we want to obstruct the
performance of those duties. let me remind my colleagues that many time probation officers are going into homes. there are moms or dads or granddads and children and certainly we realize emotions of concern may occur. we want our probation officers to be safe. that is why congress enacted section 111 of title 18 of the united states code which prohibits such behavior, and if violated these crimes should be investigated and charges are brought. but the other point is that our probation officers undergo initial six weeks of training and some additional training during the year, but they still do not have the degree of training of law enforcement officers. i want them to be protected, and that's why i think it's important that they have the assistance of trained law enforcement officers and not all probation officers carry firearms as it varies in each district. we want them protected and we'd
rather follow the law which is section 111. it's my pleasure to yield to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell, who has a long standing record of advocacy and support for the nation's law enforcement and first responders and he's a member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: how much time does the gentlelady yield? ms. jackson lee: thank you. i yield five minutes to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. good morning. you just heard my good friend, dave reichert, co-chairs of law enforcement. this is an important piece of egislation for us. mr. speaker, as the lead democrat sponsor of this bill, the probation officer protection act, i rise in strong support of closing a gap in the current law to help federal probation officers more safely and effectively carry
out their duties. despite the fact that assaulting, resisting or otherwise preventing federal probation officers from performing their official duties, which is against the law, current law does not provide the same officers the authority to correct or restrain an interfering third party. this act simply expands to hear the authority of the federal probation officers to arrest a third party with probable cause in cases where a third party tries to physically obstruct or harm the officer. i understand that some of my friends worry about the implications of expanding arrest authority for law enforcement, and i have to say there are a lot of trumped up arguments being made against this bill. for starters, federal probation officers are fully trained and
sworn federal law enforcement officers. they have a tremendous training program in charleston, south carolina, the law enforcement training center. they understand that this training is a continuing process as well. now, these officers receive extensive, ongoing, nationally standardized training to safely arrest individuals on supervised release with probable cause without a warrant. this training is also applicable to the limited arrest authority granted by this bill. the idea that expanding probation officers arrest authority to third parties will somehow lead to probation fficers going on unwarranted arresting spree, violating civil rights with impunity is
nonsense. the bill includes language to ensure that the director of the administrative office of the united states courts would issue national guidelines to implement this new limited authority. the authority will not give deral probation officers plenary law enforcement powers or general arrest authority. probable cause still must exist to carry out an arrest. that is very clear in the legislation. the bill does nothing to alter federal probation officers' scope of responsibility. . to suggest so undermines the training these officers receive and the oaths that they take. secondly, i understand that constitutional concerns have been raised by my colleagues about the due process and rights of these third parties. nothing in this bill, mr. speaker, alters the due process
or rights of third parties. nothing in the bill. if a third party agrees to house an individual on super advised release, they con-- on superadvised release, they consent to a federal officer having access to common areas in any part of the home towards the offend -- to which the offender has access. additionally, federal probation officers build a relationship with the third party housing the individual on superadvised release in order to manage their expectations on what it means to have a supervised probationer living under their roof. finally, mr. speaker, federal probation officers conducted a total of 1,060 searches pursuant to a court ordered search condition or with consent last year. more than half of the searches had at least one third party present.
despite relying on other law enforcement agencies for support and assistance during 493 of these searches, federal probation officers encountered uncooperative third parties on 30 occasions. mr. speaker, as my colleagues have acknowledged, we're not talking about a significant number of instances where this additional authority is needed. remember, only 39 instances last year. opponents claim these numbers are low, making this a solution in search of a problem. but in these 39 instances, a third party threatened, intimidated, refused to cooperate, and denied officers entry into residence to prevent an officer from doing their job. i have one more minute. ms. jackson lee: pleased to yield an additional minute.
mr. pascrell: i thank the lady, and i thank the speaker. opponents claim, that's their claim that they have, this is against the law plain and simple. the probation officer in these instances did not have the authority they needed to remedy the situation. no one wants to increase the number of arrests. that's not the purpose of the legislation. in a perfect world everyone wants a situation to be de-escalated before an arrest or detention happens. and ideally, federal probation officers would have the resources to visit their probe with a law enforcement officer. however, we don't live in a perfect world. oh? these resources are not always available. third parties sometimes intentionally interfere to prevent a federal probation officer from performing their official duties. i urge my colleagues to support
the probation officer protection act to ensure federal breaux bation officers are able to -- federal probation officers are able to do their job safely and more effective i by giving them third party arrest authority when probable cause exists. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: it's it's my pleasure to yield such time he may consume to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, on this legislation i think it's important that individuals understand probation officers. i worked at the white house in houston, texas, as a prosecutor -- courthouse in houston, texas, as a prosecutor and criminal judge for 22 years. hi probation officers report to me. that was our system. but i knew a lot of probation officers, federal and state,
they do a job that i think our society does not understand how important their job is. a person comes to court charged with a crime anti-judge decides to release that person -- and the judge decides to release that person on supervised probation. the person goes back out in the community and supposed to follow a bunch of rules or protebation could be revoked. probation officers not only have probationers come to their office to report, but probation officers go out there where these probationers are. in their homes and where they are working and check up on them. trying to make sure they toe the line. it is a very, very dangerous job, in my opinion. many of these probation officers work alone just because of budget problems. they'll go out there and they will talk to some probationer about their probation, try to encourage them to, for example,
get a job. that's what you're supposed to do when you're on probation. and they encounter other people, sometimes family members, sometimes friends, sometimes roommates, business associates, and they start yelling and screaming at the probationer. probation officer. sometimes they commit a crime against the probation officer. what is the probation officer supposed to do? call the police? no. under this legislation it allows the probation officer to arrest other people who are basically committing a crime against a probation officer. whether it's an assault or whether it's a threat or whether it's interfering maybe with the arrest of the probationer. that's what this legislation does. it helps protect the probation officer when they are out there trying to rehabilitate probationers. and i have heard stories over the 22 years at the courthouse
from probation officers about how when they go out in one of these areas of houston, texas, some of the people that are there with the probationer aren't the nicest folks in the world. and they start yelling, screaming, and actually will commit a crime against the probation officer. for example, a threat or maybe even an assault. remember, many of these individuals are working alone. they don't go out there with the swat team. they are out there by themselves. and they are doing really what we want them to do to keep that probationer following the straight and narrow. make sure they are doing what they are supposed to do. and then sometimes people interfere. this legislation protects the probation officer and allows the officer to keep those folks at bay and arrest them. no, -- now, i have heard the
concerns about whether or not this is a violation of the fourth amendment. there is no one more supportive of the fourth amendment than i am. it does not violate the fourth amendment. it gives the probation officer authority to arrest only after probable cause and really that a crime was committed. remember than call for help, call for the texas rangers, they can actually arrest that individual that is interfering. i do not believe it's a violation of the fourth amendment. i would hope those people that think so would read the fourth amendment and then read the statute as well. i support this legislation. i appreciate what sheriff reichert had to say and the chairman. that's just the way it is, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas. it ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman -- ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, do you have other speakers? are you prepared to close? mr. goodlatte: i am prepared to close. ms. jackson lee: thank you.
i am prepared to close and will ask unanimous consent to address the house for as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you. rst of all let me indicate the important work that all law enforcement do. s and as well those who serve in the probation -- and as well those who serve in the probation departments in our state and federal government. in particular we're talking about federal probation officers, and i think it is important to give them a debt of gratitude. but they are not police officers. they are probation officers. their training is quite different. their role is quite different. they are to engage in a constructive relationship with the probationer. rehabilitation, making sure
they adhere to their rules and confinement or what is detailed by the court. they do it very well. so much so that we have determined that the incidences are very low. of the 987 searches conducted by federal probation officers, only 30 involved uncooperative third parties. or 3%. we'd like it to be zero. of the 1,060 searches conducted in 2016, only 39 involved uncooperative third parties, which amounts to about 3.7%. but i agree, no probation officer should be subjected to encountering any manner that threatens them. but this legislation is vague. -- unactually unconstitutionally weak. it is weak. as relates to the constitution.
its premise as interfered invite abuse. i still maintain that many of these probation officers go to the homes of either probationer, their family, and likely in many instances it is close individuals. i believe probationers can be assisted by law enforcement officers. remember the training is distinctly different. and what it lends itself to is overbroad interpretations of interference with probation officers, duties may lead to overzealous, exercise arrest authority, which does violate the constitution. we're now looking at ways to work with law enforcement. and the solution would not be even more training, because we do not want the to turn probation officers into police officers, which would undermine the constructive role probation
officers have in the rehabilitation of supervisees. detaining, arresting, and issuing orders to families, friends, employees, and co-workers will not advance the goals of supervision but would escalate conflict and lead to greater danger. these are high goals that my colleagues have spoken of. i certainly believe that these are worthy goals. but i would offer to say that third parties are not in the same position as those who are supervised. with respect to their rights. they have given up none of their rights and should not be detained or arrested in violation of the fourth amendment. it is and can be a violation of the fourth amendment of unreasonable search and seizure. it's too vague a description to allow an on-site determination as to whether someone should be arrested. so in the name of the respect and dignity of all and the
appreciation of probation officers, if they view the situation as inappropriate or threatening, as the law allows, those cases should be investigated and prosecuted, but they can call law enforcement officers. federal probation officers should never be threatened, intimidated, assaulted, or precluded from doing their jobs. nevertheless, h.r. 1039 rather than improving their ability to execute the responsibilities, would unfortunately have the opposite result. in addition to presenting the constitutional concerns, the bill fails to provide an acceptable, practical, necessary preventive measure. further, as the public defenders of new york have indicated, the fourth amendment does not permit probation officers to exercise this lesser included power. under an exception to the fourth amendment's probable cause requirement, police officers when executing a search warrant are permitted to temporarily restrain third
parties abstinent probable cause for arrest including by using handcuffs and holding such detention tobs reasonable, the supreme court emphasized the fact of prime importance, that the search was authorized by a neutral magistrate's finding of probable cause to search the premises. that is not what the probation officer comes in to that place with. they are not a law enforcement officer. o in caution to our efforts to recognize and respect these fine men and women, let us find a different way and let us adhere to the established law that will protect the probation officer and all those that he or she may come in contact with. again with great respect for law enforcement and those who serve, i would ask my colleagues to recognize the broadness and vagueness of this legislation and oppose it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: we heard many arguments in opposition to this legislation. we explained how each of these arguments is unfounded. i simply want to again urge my colleagues to vote for this very simple, yet much needed piece of bipartisan legislation. support the men and women of law enforcement with your vote. support the paternal order of police who wrote a letter supporting this bill. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit the f.o.p. letter into the order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: support the federal law enforcement officers association who called h.r. 1039 a critical officer safety measure in their letter of endorsement. support the national association of police organizations who said h.r. 1039 is a sensible solution that ensures the safety of the officer, probationer, and the community. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous
consent to submit these letters into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: collectively, these organizations represent over half a million sworn law enforcement officers. on this last day of national police week, let's join them in supporting this bill. in this body, members tend to frequently use the term, common sense, to describe a piece of legislation. i don't think many more pieces of legislation are as common sense as this bill. it really boils down to this question -- should a law enforcement officer be able to arrest the individual who forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered with that officer? . that's it. that's all we're talking about today. common sense is the answer is a resounding yes. it's been insinuated that probation officers aren't real law enforcement and lack the training to make arrests. i think the brave men and women
who serve as federal probation officers who received extensive training and have ongoing training requirements as part of their jobs might disagree with that insinuations. further, the administrative office of the united states courts and its federal probation and pretrial academy offer nationally standardized training programs and advanced training programs targeting specialized areas of supervision. common sense tells us that these officers are qualified to make arrests. opponents of this bill would prefer to have these law enforcement officers retreat when confronted by third parties. let's think about what some of the consequences of retreat might mean. if forced to retreat, that officer is forced to terminate interaction with the probationer who may urgently require services such as substance abuse or mental health treatment. it also means contraband such as firearms or narcotics which could have been removed by the
probation officer remains in the community. in short, the consequences of retreat place public safety in jeopardy. common sense tells us that retreat is not a viable option. there's nothing revolutionary going on here. there is no new federal crime being added. this bill simply says that when someone forcibly assaulted, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes with a probation officer, that probation officer can arrest that individual. it's already a crime to engage in the behavior i just described. an individual who commits that act is going to get arrested. all we are debating today is who puts the handcuffs on the arrestee. common sense tells us that the officer who was assaulted should have the authority to make the arrest. use common sense. support h.r. 1039, the probation officer protection act of 2017, so that federal probation officers can do their
jobs safely and effectively. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 115-127 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 324, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. my amendment preserves the trust and integrity between probation officers and supervisee while ensuring public safety. while i understand the intended goal in the underlying bill, there are some unique concerns that it raises and my amendment addresses and will, i believe, provide additional information. my amendment calls for a comprehensive study by the g.a.o. of the newly granted authority to determine its impact on probations if that authority is so granted by this ody to determine the impact on
probationers, supervisees, third parties and the overall practice. this shall sunset at 30 months. . ere are concerns we all have in allowing the studdy we will ascertain information that we otherwise do not have but would have learned and proceeded without a hearing on this bill. the amendment will focus on the bill's impact and application. the study will first review instances of any abuse of power in the exercise of such arrest. and it will document any complaints of third parties. the exercise of the probation officer's arrest authority of third parties. third, it will study any civil rights ledging the violation of a civil right in the exercise of this expanded authority. i'm confident that my colleagues would agree that public safety is paramount. the safety of the probation officer is paramount. the safety of those who are in
the custody -- immediate custody of the probationer and, of course, those other individuals. we want this to be a sound policy so implementing sound policies will foster trust and thereby public safety. i want to thank the rules committee for making my amendment in order, and i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the jackson lee amendment. with that i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek time? >> i rise in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i oppose the amendment by my colleague from texas, ms. jackson lee. her amendment would sunset the very modest yet necessary and appropriate authority that we're seeking to grant federal probation officers today. no valid reason has been given for the need to sunset this provision. in fact, ample evidence is available showing why probation officers need this authority to perform their duties safely and
effectively. just last year over 1/3 of the safety related incidents reported by the probation officers and pretrial staff involve third parties encountered by officers while performing their official duties. for example, during an unannounced home visit to an apartment by officers as they approached the apartment, two unidentified subjects entered the hall from another unit. officers knocked on the residence' door and there was no answer. one third party stated, hey, 5-0, who are you looking for, and they began approaching the officers in a menacing manner. one of the thirds parties pulled out a cell phone and started videoing, yelling obscenities and making other statements to the officers. another individual in response to the commotion entered the hallway possessing a knife and drew it as he moved toward the officers. mr. ratcliffe: these types of threats, mr. speaker, are very real and very dangerous to the brave men and women who serve
the criminal justice system as federal probation officers. the types of threats that exist today will continue to exist in 2 1/2 years when the gentlelady's amendment would sunset the provisional -- the proposed arrest authority. i want to make one thing very clear, mr. speaker. the bill before us today does not create a new federal crime. it is already a federal crime to assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate or interfere with a federal probation officer for which an individual can be placed under arrest. the only thing the bill today does is say that probation officers can make that arrest. and why shouldn't they be able to make that arrest? probation officers have a unique role in our criminal justice system -- balancing the skills of a law enforcement officer with the skills of a social worker. in addition to the six weeks of initial training, federal probation officers are required to complete at least 40 hours
of continuing education and training annually. i don't think it is a radical idea to suggest that federal law enforcement officers should be able to arrest someone who commits a federal crime by interfering with the duties being performed by that officer. let them do their part in keeping the public safe. let them do their jobs safely. let them do their jobs effectively. i oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i believe this amendment is a very important amendment, and i believe that it provides the kind of guidance that is necessary because it is a clear ascertaining of the impact. remember, we're talking about possible constitutional ramifications.
unreasonable search and seizure. we're talking about not having assaults against probation officers, and there is a law that will already provide for that protection as well as the fact that probation officers who are not police officers can in fact have the ability of law enforcement backup or support. in addition, we realize that there is a greater burden on law enforcement officers in an arrest situation. that burden is not on the probation officer because they're not a law enforcement officer. it's important for this study to be enacted so that we have the facts. do we not as legislators want to have the facts regarding the constitution and the impact it may have? so i would ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. it is in fact not an amendment that negates if this bill passed the acts of the probation officer but what it does do is study whether there is an enhanced impact and whether grandmother, mother, a little child, an aunt, an uncle
in the sanctity of their home are unreasonably detained or arrested. we as americans should at least be concerned about the rights of our fellow citizens and be able to respect them in their home. a probation officer has the right to call in law enforcement officers if the actions of the home or wherever that individual happens to be gets in a way that interferes with his or her ability to arrest his probationer. let me remind everyone that the relationship between the probation officer and the probationer is a constructive one, one of rehabilitation and sadly if on one incident or 39 incidents or 3% of the incidents that occurs, that officer has the right to be able to call law enforcement to be of arest -- to assist. this study is a constructive, forth right study to help us better protect the rights of citizens and of the
constitution of the united states. i ask my colleagues to support yield amendment and i back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. ratcliffe: mr. speaker, there is no fourth amendment violation. the bill makes no reference whatsoever to the issue of searches and there is no objection to the gentlelady's request for a study, but there continues to be and needs to be objection and opposition to a sunset provision with respect to the authority that probation officers need to perform their duties safely and effectively. i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady -- the gentleman has the only time. ms. jackson lee: will the gentleman yield to introduce some records? mr. ratcliffe: mr. speaker, are they covered by general leave? ms. jackson lee: unanimous consent to introduce these into the record, please.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: federal defenders of new york, the leadership conference of civil and human rights and the aclu opposing the underlying bill. i thank the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. ratcliffe: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: with that i ask for the yeas and nays, a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the japanese are requested. -- the yeas and nays are requested. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, and the order of the house of today, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house n recess until approximately 12:15 a.m. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess 11:15 a.m. today.
>> i didn't hear anything classified but the bottom line, general consensus, it was a good decision to pick a special counsel. a lot of confidence in mr. mueller. i think the shock to the body is, it's now considered a criminal investigation and congress' ability to conduct investigations of all things russia has been severely limited probably in an appropriate fashion. senator graham: so i think a lot of members want the special counsel to be appointed but don't understand that you're pretty well knocked out of the game. and that's probably the way it should be. it was a counterintelligence investigation before now. it seems to me now to be considered a criminal investigation and what does that mean for the congress? i find it hard to subpoena